Mikewsmith, I understand your response, and it is a common view obviously. We can’t make the world totally safe. But also, we do have airbags on steering wheels (despite the cost) and not a spike instead (which would be a better deterrent). Northwood said trail designers / builders remove low branches that could blind someone, so they see a risk and they do something about it. But in this case a risk of people dying has been clearly shown to exist, yet no-one seems willing to consider doing anything about it. It just doesn’t compute. To use another analogy: if there is someone that has been proven to be a danger to your kids, they are taken away – you wouldn’t argue to leave them there and parade your kids past them everyday because it makes life “exciting” would you? Just because we do a risky sport/pastime, that does mean we should ignore unacceptable risks. After all, most of us do wear pads and helmets. From the sounds of some of the comments above you should take those off as it would make riding that bit more exciting. I for one ride for the speed and flow downhill after the technical and physical challenge of climbing uphill. Now, I get less of that speed/flow reward as I see far more risk from certain trees which I was ignorant of their risk before Mark’s misfortune opened my eyes. I no longer get pleasure from the runs where such risks are present. It is a fine balance and you can’t please all of the people all of the time. The sad thing is I struggle to get the enthusiasm to ride there (or anywhere) anymore now that my buddy has gone. I don’t blame him for that, just myself.

Tragic though it is, one incident doesn’t make good statistics.

If everyone who went down the trial smacked into a particular tree, there might be a case for moving the trail.

Not cutting the tree, that would be madness. The tree was there before the trail was put near it.

But most people manage to ride the trail without incident. Accidents will still happen, sad, but true.

Wouldn’t it be easier to remodel the corner?

Any activity can cause injury. If you are worried that a activity may cause you injury dont do it. If you do decide to do it, then embrace the the dangers as part of the whole experience.

If we take ripmk’s logic and apply it to roads, there would be constant roadworks remodelling junctions and bends all year round to make them safer.
People make errors of judgement when driving (or riding etc) and a small minority pay the ultimate price for their error.
You cant go remodelling the world to mitigate every possible risk from an infinite number of possible error scenarios.
Its one tree which happened to cause one death due to pilot error. Please don’t decide for the rest of us what is best for us based on an emotional knee jerk reaction.

I’m pretty sure ripmk’s argument is based upon emotions as well as logic right now..he recently lost his mate in a tragic accident….I think I’d feel the same way as him at this point in time..

If we’re going to have padded trees, manicured forests, North Shore features, let’s stop calling this aspect of cycling mountainbiking, and change it to Big Wheel BMX.

Wouldn’t it be easier to remodel the corner?

Without wanting to sound like victim blaming, I don’t even know which tree on that corner Mark hit. But the fact is Mark hit a tree, the tree didn’t hit him. There isn’t one tree that stands out to me as being more dangerous than the rest on that trail. And I’m not sure any are close enough to clip bars on unless you’re already off the trail.

The first time I rode the trail after the accident i was taken by surprise to see riders stopped at the memorial (I stopped next time for a quiet 5 minutes), it’s not a place I’d consider dangerous being a relatively smooth, off the brakes flat out section, when I heard the news I was sure it was on the earlier rollers or the stepdown at the end (both of which IIRC were re-modeled after accidents).

Which goes to show how difficult it would be to come up with a rule for how close a trail can get to trees. Look at other trails like Seagull, Satans Grotto, or W9Y which get much much closer to the trees.

I don’t feel entirely comfortable arguing it in this thread but Tom’s idea is completely wrong. By all means make specific DH race tracks as safe as possible, but trails should not be held to the same standards. We don’t coerce people to ride Swinely at high speeds, there’s no race, it’s a different ball game. Part of Mountianbiking is knowing your limits and sticking within them, if you’re not comfortable with a gap in the trees, slow down and take it easy. Further than that, there are 1000’s of miles of bridleways lined with trees, these are held to an even lower standard, they don’t (IIRC) even need to be passable to bikes, only horses (which gives a lower threshold, but thats a different argument).

Unfortunately with this kind of thing there is no middle ground, you have to make a rule and apply it evenly. Judging that that specific tree is dangerous can’t be done in isolation, the odds of someone hitting that tree must be 1 in a million, to effectively prevent that happening again you don’t cut down the 1, that does nothing, you’d have to go after the million or so trees that line trail centers all round the country. Otherwise all you’re achieving is making a rule that says “trees like this are dangerous”, but doing nothing about it. Or the current state of play, which is to accept that trees are dangerous, but that the risk of hitting one is acceptable relative to both the odds of hitting one, and the usually minor consequences (hands up who hasn’t hugged a tree at high speed and come off fine, in fact I’ve hit a similar one in Guisborough and it saved me from a big drop over the side of the trail!).

Reductio ad absurdium:
Should the whole world be padded to make it safe for base jumpers and wing suits? There’s an accepted level of risk in everything, from playing darts to base jumping. By doing those things you have to take responsibility and accept that you’re there by choice.

If we’re going to have padded trees, manicured forests, North Shore features, let’s stop calling this aspect of cycling mountainbiking, and change it to Big Wheel BMX.

Have you seen some of the risks bmx’rs take?

Sunnydaze is right. I would just say to all those that love mountain biking and do it because it makes them feel alive and they enjoy the adrenalin etc. Keep in the back of your mind that it isn’t just you out there riding the trails – you take all your friends ans family with you. They don’t have a choice regarding the risks you take but do have to live with the consequences, be careful out there, keep within your limits and be safe, if not for yourselves, do it for your families.

If we’re going to have padded trees, manicured forests, North Shore features, let’s stop calling this aspect of cycling mountainbiking, and change it to Big Wheel BMX.

Bro, do you even downhill? (joke line) 😆 But seriously have you seen how many padded trees they have on WC courses?

So you’re more hardcore than those guys hey?

Unfortunately with this kind of thing there is no middle ground, you have to make a rule and apply it evenly. Judging that that specific tree is dangerous can’t be done in isolation, the odds of someone

Bollocks, the odds of hitting a tree on the outside of a berm with a high speed entry and slow apex are much much higher than hitting one on a straight.

I don’t feel entirely comfortable arguing it in this thread but Tom’s idea is completely wrong. By all means make specific DH race tracks as safe as possible, but trails should not be held to the same standards. We don’t coerce people to ride Swinely at high speeds, there’s no race, it’s a different ball game. Part of Mountianbiking is knowing your limits and sticking within them, if you’re not comfortable with a gap in the trees, slow down and take it easy. Further than that, there are 1000’s of miles of bridleways lined with trees, these are held to an even lower standard, they don’t (IIRC) even need to be passable to bikes, only horses (which gives a lower threshold, but thats a different argument).

When I started riding at about the age of 7 – properly – trail centres were mostly plces like Coed-Y-Brenin. Old school technical trails that were slow – most offs amounted to a bruise.

These days places like Swinley allow and ecourage you to crash with twice the speed, we ride trail bikes with 64 degree head angles that encourage downhill speeds and yet attitudes to tail design have changed little. Your still considered ridiculous if you take a downhill helmet out with you on a trail on your back, even though after you’ve winched you’re hitting similar speed to a DH track.

Trails like Swinley are manicured to fit in with the style of riding a lot of people now do and it’s precisely because of that that some of them need a bit more thought in places.

@sharkattack

the photo of Esher showing the padded trees was part of the “blue” (novice) area

This is from the 1st build of the park

following a serious (life changing) accident in the early days of Esher Shore, ironically on the lowest trail (2 foot off ground) in the park the H&SE got involved and shut the the park down for nearly 8 months.

During this time we worked closely with them to develop new guidance for elevated timber ‘north shore’ trails in the UK. Park was completely flattened and rebuilt

the big development was grading into carefully defined blue, red and black trails

each category had a carefully defined ratios of height/width with no gaps / free drops on blue trails, and black could not be higher than 1.95m as the nearest H&S regulation that could be applied was ‘working at height without restraint systems’

In the end we built few black trails as additional guidance came in that riders on black trails had to be supervised and wear additional body armour!

we tended to use the few black trails at the Jams for the visting pro riders to put on a show

you can do everything to mitigate risk, but it was an inherently dangerous activity and our insurance premiums rose every year as more and more riders got hurt. the early work we did with the H&SE simply allowed the park to re-open and remain open. we constantly rebuilt stunts and entire trails if accident patterns became evident. the entire site was covered in deep woodchip, crash pads wherever needed and “fall zones” cleared 1.5M either side of the trail with all spikes and stumps removed.

the insurance company would insist on inspecting the accident book every renewal, even though we had no further legal claims.

during the 8 years the park ran, for the first 6 years it was very successful during its peak attracting over 200 riders a week from all over the UK, plus some from further away like Mr. Wade Simmons below:

The entire experience was a real eye opener to the risks of running a publicly accessible bike park. I was somewhat glad when it all eventually closed, and I did not have to constantly worry about law suits and rider accidents. When you operate a facility that is open to riders with very different abilities you are surprised about how people manage to have accidents, in ways you would have never seen possible – the great unknown is often present in accidents which can occur on the mildest of trails.

@sharkattack

the photo of Esher showing the padded trees was part of the “blue” (novice) area, from the 2nd build of the park

This is from the 1st build of the park

the ‘skyline’ trail in the 2nd image is 2.8M off the ground

following a serious (life changing) accident in the early days of Esher Shore, ironically on the lowest trail (2 foot off ground) in the park the H&SE got involved and shut the the park down for nearly 8 months.

During this time we worked closely with them to develop new guidance for elevated timber ‘north shore’ trails in the UK. Park was completely flattened and rebuilt

the big development was grading into carefully defined blue, red and black trails

each category had a carefully defined ratios of height/width with no gaps / free drops on blue trails, and black could not be higher than 1.95m as the nearest H&S regulation that could be applied was ‘working at height without restraint systems’

In the end we built few black trails as additional guidance came in that riders on black trails had to be supervised and wear additional body armour

we tended to use the few black trails at the Jams for the visting pro riders to put on a show, the rest of the times the black trails were locked using removable entry ramps

you can do everything to mitigate risk, but it was an inherently dangerous activity and our insurance premiums rose every year as more and more riders got hurt. the early work we did with the H&SE simply allowed the park to re-open and remain open. we constantly rebuilt stunts and entire trails if accident patterns became evident. the entire site was covered in deep woodchip, crash pads wherever needed and “fall zones” cleared 1.5M either side of the trail with all spikes and stumps removed.

the insurance company would insist on inspecting the accident book every renewal, even though we had no further legal claims.

during the 8 years the park ran, for the first 6 years it was very successful during its peak attracting over 200 riders a week from all over the UK, plus some from further away like Mr. Wade Simmons below:

The entire experience was a real eye opener to the risks of running a publicly accessible bike park. I was somewhat glad when it all eventually closed, and I did not have to constantly worry about law suits and rider accidents. When you operate a facility that is open to riders with very different abilities you are surprised about how people manage to have accidents, in ways you would have never seen possible – the great unknown is often present in accidents which can occur on the mildest of trails.

jam bo – Member
‘If we’re going to have padded trees, manicured forests, North Shore features, let’s stop calling this aspect of cycling mountainbiking, and change it to Big Wheel BMX.”
Have you seen some of the risks bmx’rs take?

Yup, that’s why I came up with that brilliant idea. 🙂

Same sort of body abusers, just older.

But on a more serious note, separating out the categories may remove some of the bile directed at mountainbiking by the red sock brigade.

Tom w1987: I think your point about the type of trail is spot on.

Bollocks, the odds of hitting a tree on the outside of a berm with a high speed entry and slow apex are much much higher than hitting one on a straight.

I’m sorry, but to hit that particular tree you’d have to be well off the trail, it’s the corner about 22seconds into this video. It’s not a tree you can just clip with a bar end unless things are already going badly wrong.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cszX8vjFVx4[/video]

When I started riding at about the age of 7 – properly – trail centres were mostly plces like Coed-Y-Brenin. Old school technical trails that were slow – most offs amounted to a bruise.

Depends where and when you started riding, but you’ve stumbled upon one of the key points in trail design and how it’s evolved.

The first trail centers in the UK were the ones in North Wales, and part of the design brief was that speeds should be managed to keep them low. The second set to be built were the 7 Stanes in the early 2000’s. They were much much faster, with berms to carry speed. But crucially both sets of trails were built to a set of guidelines (just different ones) that were judged to be ‘safe’. Now, if there was found to be an issue with those guidelines, say loads of people were coming a cropper on doubles on blue graded runs, then you can do something about it, like specify that only table tops are allowed on blue runs. What you can’t do is fill in each double as an accident occurs. That will do absolutely nothing to curb the accident rate (this is why IMHO they’ve made a mistake with Jump Gulley), to prevent future similar accidents you have to fill in ALL doubles on the blue. Exactly the same principal applies to trees near the track. Removing that tree in particular would do nothing to curb the accident rate, if anything it’ll just result in a cut through, resulting in more speed on the next obstacle.

These days places like Swinley allow and ecourage you to crash with twice the speed, we ride trail bikes with 64 degree head angles that encourage downhill speeds and yet attitudes to tail design have changed little. Your still considered ridiculous if you take a downhill helmet out with you on a trail on your back, even though after you’ve winched you’re hitting similar speed to a DH track.

Trails like Swinley are manicured to fit in with the style of riding a lot of people now do and it’s precisely because of that that some of them need a bit more thought in places.

You’d need some evidence to show that modern bikes are
a) faster
b) crashing more

See the Rob Warner story from earlier in the week, 20year old DH bike was only 11s off the pace of a new one (and the old one was 2 sizes too small and under sprung).

I quite happily ride that trail on a rigid fat bike (and according to strava, in 60% of the time/1.5x the speed that guy in the video does it), and I’ve rarely felt out of my comfort zone.

Now, back to the topic of trees, you say Swinley needs some attention ‘in places’, Deerstalker can be ridden at similar speeds to Kevlar, and is a LOT tighter, which is why you can’t just remove that tree in isolation, if it was a genuinely unacceptable danger then you would have to clear fell deerstaker/labrynth too because there is no point on that hillside more than a couple of meters from the trail.

@esher – very thought provoking post sharing first hand experiences

The reality is that speed killed MK not the tree. Trees are not inherently dangerous. Hug a tree, it doesn’t hurt. Smash into a tree at speed. It hurts. Lie down on the ground. It doesn’t hurt, Smash into the ground at speed. It hurts. Speed is the determining factor. If we adopt a policy of trees are bad, you’d have to cull half the forest, red 25 is one of the most open areas under the forest canopy. All over the country, and I mean all over there are faster trails with closer trees. If this was a real issue then we’d be hearing about more than the occasional freak accident. If it was felt that people are riding beyond sensible limits then changing the trail to reduce speed would be far more effective in reducing accidents. As a friend of mine says if you’re banging your head against a wall don’t put a crash helmet on. If people (as a collective mass) are riding faster than the collective skill can likely sustain you need to address the speed issue first and foremost. The reason why DH races use pads is because the likely effect of any crash will be accentuated by the increased velocity of the racer. Also, and really very importantly, they are pay to play events, and so there is an expected obligation to take safety to the maximum level practical.

While I totally agree the trail would be safer without the tree. It would be safer without many things. If you make the trails safe then the won’t be worth riding, therefore you have to accept some risk, and personally, I think that specific tree is acceptable risk.

When I started riding at about the age of 7 – properly – trail centres were mostly plces like Coed-Y-Brenin. Old school technical trails that were slow – most offs amounted to a bruise.

These days places like Swinley allow and ecourage you to crash with twice the speed,

Trails like Swinley are manicured to fit in with the style of riding a lot of people now do

attitudes to tail design have changed little.

Well, either design has changed or it hasn’t. You can’t really have it both ways…

There is no mention of him hitting a tree in that report?

Do people know he definitely hit a tree, the report states his injuries were from falling forward.

Good point sancho. Anybody got an answer ?

We’re all generally guilty about judging an event by its consequences, but glossing over the actions that led to the consequences.

The tree’s position (I don’t know the exact spot) might in itself not be hazardous, but a combination of speed and a partiular type of fall may have been the ingredients to make that tree hazardous in that instance.

The next accident at that spot will in all likelihood have a different set of ingredients from a different rider speed, weight and fall type. Therefore in all likelihood there wouldn’t be an issue with that particular tree.

That in my mind would make this a tragic Accident. It should remind us not to be blasé about the risks, to take precautions such as wearing adequate protection and controlling speed into and out of challenging sections.

I hope Marks family take solace in the fact he died doing something he enjoyed and I would like to express my condolences to them and his friends.

I recall riding in Moab years ago on a trail that my memory thinks was the Whole Enchilada. There was one section that was really exposed; a narrow trail that had a sheer drop what looked 1000ft into the river.

The guide said if you fell there ‘you’d starve to death before you hit the bottom’

In a litigous society like the US, you’d think there would be a guardrail, or it would be banned. Instead there was a grown-up assertion that you shouldn’t fall off.

Someone had a nasty accident. The only way to absolutely not have another would be to not do anything.

Is that genuinely what Mark Kingston would think is a good outcome from his accident?

This is simply a tragic and rare accident. Mountain biking is risky, but very few people die as a result of accidents (deaths from medical episodes are a little higher).

Anything could cause you to suddenly be heading towards a tree. I’ve seen it plenty enough. One of our rides, our guy over a jump, front wheel just twisted a little on landing I think and next thing he’s hugging the tree way off to the side. It’s not the tree’s fault.

I should think CE or whoever have no reason to be concerned here. As mentioned earlier about statistics, this is something rare. The gully on the other hand featured high in accident stats, hence it was demolished.

Even on roads, one death doesn’t force the introduction of traffic calming measures. Several does though (there’s a threshold they use I believe, not sure how much).

See the Rob Warner story from earlier in the week, 20year old DH bike was only 11s off the pace of a new one (and the old one was 2 sizes too small and under sprung).

Good post with some very valid point – but the difference in times was made up in corners and technical sections. 11 seconds is a HUGE difference in speed through those sections.

Well, either design has changed or it hasn’t. You can’t really have it both ways…

In terms of safety.